Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

Since this series deals with religion, something needs to be said about salvation and religion, considering the various forms existing in the Philippine Islands.

The claim is made by believers in Catholicism and repeated by those who do not bother to check that out, that “The Philippines is a Christian nation” equating Christianity with Catholicism. It is true that about 83% of the people hold to what they consider some form of Catholicism, but this is not even the same as saying it is a “Catholic nation.” Among the most faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), their brands of Catholicism have been altered and adjusted over the centuries since it was originally introduced by the Spanish. These include a number of non-Catholic, strictly Philippine elements. Many of the traditional holidays (Holy Days) have been altered either in practice or date to include some pre-existing belief or practice among the people there. In some cases, if the Pope were to visit during that period, he would scarcely be able to recognize what he might have been assured was this particular occasion. The last figures I saw on the subject stated there were as many as twenty different branches of Roman Catholicism there today, each sufficiently distinct as to have evolved as organizational structure totally separate from every other RCC organizational structure there. In some cases, these are only nominally connected with Rome. For example, in one group, sometimes referred to as “Black Catholics,” there is the annual Flagalation on “Good Friday.” It is in imitation of Christ’s scourging, carrying His cross to Golgatha, and finally, his crucifixion. I have watched and photographed several of these. Those who participate are stripped to their waists, and blindfolded. Their hands are tied in front of them, and a whip is in their hands. They will walk for some distance alternately swinging these whips from one side to the other, until their backs look like a piece of raw hamburger. Then they may actually carry (drag, really) crosses for some additional distance. Finally, they are laid on the crosses and tied to them (I know of one instance, where the man was nailed and tied both) and the cross is placed upright and those on them are allowed to hang there for a time.

Paganism and animal sacrifice are not unknown there, even today. Occasionally we will hear of a tribe being discovered having a “stone-age” culture, with their worship pagan. In 1973 when Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there, while taking an obscure trail from the road down to the river to baptize several, we found the remains of animal sacrifice. I have pictures.

The Spanish held sway in that nation for 350 years before the Spanish-American war at the turn of the century ended it. With the Spanish army came the Roman Catholic “priests.” In the decades which followed, Catholicism in variously modified forms became the religion of that nation, working its way into the warp and woof of its society until the impression was left that the Philippine Islands were indeed a “Catholic nation.” As far as a commitment to Catholicism on a religious basis is concerned, this is best measured by the emptiness of their places of worship except on important “holidays.” But it is well to remember that what the RCC may lack as far as religious commitment of its members, it strives to replace with its control of the society there through politics and other means. To a very large degree, it has been, and continues to be successful. It is a mistake to underestimate the real power of Catholicism there. Often the display of power is neither blatant nor even very obvious; but it is there nevertheless. It shows up in the conditioned reaction of the people. For example, a priest does not have to tell the Barrio Captain not to issue a gospel preacher a permit for an open-air meeting. The Captain, automatically “knowing” the RCC is the only real church, will refuse such a permit because his previous conditioning and beliefs will not permit him to allow disruption of what he sees as necessary religious Christian (i.e. Catholic) harmony.

The impact and effect of the Roman Church there is great. It has so many tentacles and tendrils that I am no longer surprised at anything I see which stems directly or indirectly from the RCC. My own guess as to the reason Mr. Marcos, President of that nation, has not moved against the RCC, to expropriate its vast land holdings and return these to the people, is the all-pervading influence of the RCC in that society. Rightfully, the land belongs to the people. It was taken from them unlawfully and unethically during the centuries of Spanish occupation. But the power of the RCC is so great that any attempt to take back that land would probably produce social chaos among the very people such expropriation would be designed to assist.

Prior to the Spanish-American war, the Spanish had effectively prevented any serious penetration by Protestantism in the Philippines. With the end of that war, came the end of Spanish control and the immediate introduction of various Protestant denominations. These groups generally taught a great deal more Bible truth then the RCC ever did, and numbers were attracted. But the total inroads were not great – something along the line of 3% of the population. In this figure, I have included God’s people. Numerically, we are so small, and so impossible to count, that computing a percentage is not practical.

In 1914, one Felix Manalo started his own Church (it surely was not the Lord’s!). It carries the name Iglesia ni Christo (Church of Christ). More than a religion, it is a political organization, a social one and one with tremendous power in the economic area. It is also very tightly-knit. In elections, the members vote as a block for whichever candidate or party its leaders select for them. In recent years, the government has taken action to curb its political and economic abuses. Indeed, the very fact of its tight organization has permitted the government to move against it more effectively than would be possible for it to act against the RCC. The central doctrine of the Iglesia ni Christo (commonly called the “Manaloists”) is that Christ is not divine, and that Felix Manalo was a prophet equal to Jesus. Felix Manalo has long since kept his appointment (Heb. 9:27) and today the organization is run by his son.

Converting folks out of both the RCC and the Manaloists, we face problems and difficulties erected by these organizations. Often, there is no direct opposition ordered or even condoned by the organizations themselves. But such obstruction results from the thinking of its members who occupy important governmental positions, because of their training and beliefs. These make them resist the pure Word of Truth. On some occasions, however, the opposition to teachers of God’s Word is both official and dangerous. I have been with a Filipino preacher when he was told by a Manaloist that, “If more of my people had been here, we would have hurt you.” The preacher believed the man; so did I.

Muslims comprise about 4% of the population, mostly in Mindanao. They have little influence beyond their own people and area.

The real beginning of New Testament Christianity in the modern period was in 1928 when George Benson was on his way to China. Due to a delay in obtaining permission to enter that country, he spent 8 months on the Philippine Island of Mindoro. While there, he converted a number of people. I know some of them who are alive today. They are still believing, living and teaching the truth Benson taught them – and it is a shame their teacher is not. The next year, Harold Cassells went there and converted more. God’s work there grew slowly for several decades. The Second World War greatly hindered its spread. Following hostilities, the church in many places almost had to begin again, so many had ceased to worship or were discouraged from it during the Japanese occupation that most of the congregations were no longer in existence. In 1948, our liberal brethren sent Ralph Brashears to that nation to establish a college. It started on the Island of Luzon, the city of Tayug. Several years later, it moved to Baguio City, where the Philippine Bible College (PBC) continues until today. Growth expanded somewhat, but is tainted by the loss of local autonomy which such centralized institutional activities always bring about. In the early 1960’s, Kenneth Wilkey became the president of the PBC, having ousted Brashears in a move which had all the ear marks of political ambition. By 1962, several U.S. military personnel were openly opposing the institutionalism of the PBC. One man, Dave Turner, a naval pilot at our base at Subic Bay, was the object of a campaign of the American liberals at the PBC to ruin his military career because of his opposition to their unscriptural activities.

But the tide had turned, and liberalism was beginning to lose ground there. On one island, not a single church nor preacher had defected to the liberals. Not that they had been specifically taught against it, but rather, they had been taught truth so well, liberalism had no appeal for them. Men such as Romula B. Agduma on Mindanao were openly opposing the institutional apostasy there. Castorio F. Famit and Victorio R. Tibayan, Sr. were seeing the errors of the PBC, especially as related to congregational activity, and teaching against it. They and others who did so, suffered as a result of their stand for truth.

Beginning in 1970, American preachers have gone to the Philippines to teach. Roy Cogdill and Cecil Willis were the first to do so. Others followed. In 1971, Connie Adams and J.T. Smith were there. in 1972, it was Jim Needham and Dudley Spears. In 1973, Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there. In 1974, it was Larry Hafley and Earl Robertson. In 1975, Connie Adams and Cecil Willis returned. In 1976, Jady Copeland returned with Harold Trimble with him. In 1977, Keith Burnett and I went there. Keith stayed six weeks and I remained three months. During my last month there, I was joined by Paul Casebolt and Jim Puterbaugh. Jim remained a year, teaching the brethren much as he had done in the program at Kirkland, Washington. In 1978, Leo Plyler and Hiram Hutto went, and I made a hasty trip later, in mid-summer, to assist with a critical benevolent need in one area. Others plan to go in the years ahead.

Much good has come from these trips; Two of the greatest effects are the increased contact between the brethren there and those in the U.S., and the consequent support of native preachers there, most of whom are doing good and effective work.

Since 1973, the growth there has been explosive. Rarely has history recorded a growth such as has taken place in the Philippines. The early church, outlined in the book of Acts is one instance. Others I know of are: the U.S., both in the period of 1800-1850, and 1900-1940, and Nigeria, West Africa, 1955-1965. Today in the Philippines there are more than 500 preachers who oppose the institutional error. Of these, about 150 are supported, and many of these preach in at least two churches, sometimes three. There are at least 800 congregations, and possibly the number is a lot higher; there is no way to know for sure.

Several things hinder the work. One is the conduct of some who have made godliness a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:5), and the time it takes for these to be exposed and unmasked. Another is the lack of depth of so many of the preachers (Jim Puterbaugh did a great deal to help in improving this). A third is their lack of experience in methods of teaching. God willing, Jim plans to return to continue his work there for another year in 1980. In the same year, God also being willing for me to do so, I plan to return for three months to teach on methods of teaching. Then in 1982, or 1983, my family and I plan to move there, to work with the brethren for several years. Essentially, I would like to accomplish two things. First, help the churches by spending about half my time working with them in gospel meetings, which are very effective there. Second, I want to research the information necessary to write a book on the modern history since 1928) of God’s people there.

Another hindrance is the multiplicity of dialects. However, the three major dialects account for between 40 and 45 million people. Several of the more accomplished brethren are working on an Interlinear translation of the New Testament from the 1901, using these three basic dialects. The value of such a tool in reaching people there would be difficult to over-estimate. I am in the process of trying to raise the necessary funds to assist these men in their work, and see to the publication of it.

Helpfully simple and direct, this manual presents overhead transparencies and the many other audiovisual materials that can be utilized as teaching tools. Includes many helpful charts, diagrams and pictures.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 198-200
March 22, 1979

By Mike Willis

Two recent articles have crossed my desk which suggest means of unity which involve no, repentance. I would like to discuss both of them very briefly. There is no spirit of animosity toward the authors personally, although I am utterly committed to destroy their damnable doctrines.

“Thus Concludeth The Brotherhood”

Andy Lawrence wrote an article under the above title in Firm Foundation (September 12, 1978). In this, Brother Lawrence tried to distinguish the truth of God’s word from our conclusions drawn from the truth of God’s word. There is no doubt that these are sometimes different; my conclusions drawn from the word of God are sometimes not what the word of God teaches. However, what is incorrect is the idea that one can know what the word of God teaches without drawing conclusions from God’s word.

Brother Lawrence brought up this subject to discuss the subject of unity. He said that our problems which have divided us stem from making our conclusions about the Scriptures equal with what the Scriptures teach. He wrote,

Conclusions drawn from the Bible may enlighten all of us greatly. They may combine many biblical truths into syllogisms which for all practical purposes are infallible. But the intrusion of the human mind into the sanctity of inspired doctrine must eliminate “humanly drawn conclusions” from being equated with “divinely drawn lines” of fellowship. Otherwise scholars, and otherwise men, stand between the common man and God.

If the Lord didn’t state it then, even if my brilliant conclusions are as true as if he did, it is wrong for me to use my personally drawn convictions as a standard of fellowship with another Christian. After all, maturity may later shift position; and who hasn’t had that experience?

He made specific application of this matter to the church support of benevolent homes. If his position will work on this subject, it will work as well on instrumental music in worship, church support of missionary societies, etc. If it works with the Christian Church people, it should work with all denominationals. My conclusions that baptism is “immersion” might, after all, just be a “conclusion drawn from the Scriptures” rather than the “Scriptures” themselves. Furthermore, my conclusions about the “oneness of the church” should not be equated with the divine revelation that appears in God’s word.

Please tell me, which conclusions drawn from the Scriptures can be made essential for salvation and fellowship? Should my conclusions about who Christ is, what He has done for me to save my soul, what conditions are necessary for salvation, etc. (let us not forget that wise men are also divided an-those~issues) be essential conclusions for all men to make? If so, do I not place “scholars and wise men” between the common man and God?

There is no conviction that I hold based on my study of God’s word that does not have to run through my mind before it becomes a part of my convictions. That is just the method we have of arriving at truth. God revealed His word in the Bible. We read the Bible, allowing it to pass through our minds. When we believe the Bible, we reach conclusions based on it. Those conclusions are binding upon men because they are inherent in the word of God. My conclusions are right or wrong, depending upon the method in which I handle the Scriptures. There are no unique conclusions drawn from the Bible; they all come in the same manner. My convictions about Jesus come in exactly the same manner as my convictions about baptism and instrumental music. Furthermore, Brother Lawrence, my conclusions about church support of human institutions, church supported recreation, etc. come in exactly the same way as did the former convictions. If we are to throw out things which we conclude from the Bible as being essential for fellowship, we can fellowship any man, from the atheist to the infidel to the antinomians in the church who have introduced their innovations in the work and worship of the church. Some solutions to our divisions sound good on paper but will not work. Brother Lawrence’s solution to our divisions does not even sound good on paper. It ultimately leads to universalism in our fellowship.

Notice some of the things revealed to us in ways other than direct statements of the Scriptures which cannot be made the basis of fellowship because of Brother Lawrence’s conclusions:

1. Frequency of partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

2. Autonomy of the local church.

3. The day of worship for the New Testament church.

4. That Bible baptism is water baptism.

5. The nature and permanence of the office of the deacon.

6. The right of evangelists to locate with a given church.

7. Proper congregational cooperation.

According to Brother Lawrence’s premises, these matters cannot be made matters of fellowship because they are based on conclusions drawn from the Scriptures rather than from what the Scriptures teach expressly. Are you ready to accept this?

Really, what Brother Lawrence and several others are trying to devise is a means of having fellowship without anyone repenting. Someone was sinful in this recent division of the church over church support of human institutions. Consequently, someone is going to have to repent of his sins. If the liberal element of the church was wrong in introducing these innovations, they must repent of their sin of introducing these innovations and remove them before they can be forgiven and our breaches be healed once again. If the conservatives were wrong in binding over and above what God has bound, they are going to have to repent of this sin and quit doing it in order for the fellowship to be restored. Trying to pretend that both sides can be right is a rather naive approach to our problems.

“Men And Brethren, What Shall We Do?”

This was the title of a recent article in Contending For The Faith (August, 1978) by Ira Y. Rice, Jr. Brother Rice related his thoughts while in his attendance at the debate between Carroll R. Sutton and Ray Hawk. In this, he said,

Both sides, it seemed to me, went out of their way to show a spirit of kindness and courtesy to each other. Although there was never any question as to “which side” I personally was on, yet, as I sat there, I kept repeating to myself over and over what a tragedy it is that both sides which agree on practically everything else should thus be divided over an issue such as this when we desperately need to be united in common cause against the real “liberalism” plaguing those of us who are on either side of this issue.

Notice that Brother Rice does not consider his brand of liberalism to be dangerous. Rather, he thinks that we should ignore his form of liberalism in order to have unity. The truth of the matter is that his brand of liberalism is the daddy of the thing which he calls “real liberalism.” He helped father the Frankenstein monster which Contending For The Faith was designed to destroy! To pull off the leaves of a plant will do no good unless one goes deeper and pulls out the roots as well. Rice is trying to break off the leaves without touching the roots. If his axe were really on the roots, he would be opposed to the form of liberalism which produced the Herald of Truth and church support of human institutions in the first place.

But, let us continue to listen to Brother Rice,

As dead set against the Anti-Cooperation persuasion as I have been since its inception almost a third of a century ago, I never thought I should see the day when I’d actually feel closer to them than toward many with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder for all these years.

Yet, when I see possibly the majority of our so-called Christian college administrations as well as the editors of some of our supposed-to-be gospel papers headed pell-mell after Liberalism, I think the time has come to call a halt and take a new look.

Anti-Cooperation, in my book, is still wrong. Yet, if those espousing such could quit making it a test of fellowship, Christian forbearance might make it possible for us to work together once again. At least they still honor the Bible as the inspired word of God–which is more than can be said of most now rushing after Liberalism.

Brother Rice is in an unenviable predicament. The liberalism which he helped to father some twenty-five years ago has grown up on him and he does not like what he sees. He wants just a little bit of liberalism! He cannot stand the entire group of liberalism’s beliefs.

Brethren warned through the years of the fight against liberalism – the introduction of the sponsoring church arrangement and church support of human institutions – that this was just allowing the camel to get his nose in the tent. When his nose was in the tent; he would want his head, then his shoulders, etc. until he got his whole body in the tent. That has happened. But Brother Rice does not like it. Neither does W.L. Totty, Guy N. Woods, Garland Elkins, Thomas B. Warren, James D. Bales nor a number of others. They just want a little bit of liberalism.

History will place these men in exactly the same position as some of the more conservative Christian Church preachers who wanted the mechancial instruments of music and the church supported missionary societies but did not want to accept all of the things which the Disciples of Christ have introduced. They will simply spend the rest of their lives trying to kill the Frankenstein monster which they sired twenty-five years ago.

Brother Rice’s form of unity with the “AntiCooperation” brethren is simple. He simply suggests that we quit preaching that the things which they are doing are sinful and we can be united. Brother Rice, practice what you preach! Why not quit preaching that instrumental music is sinful and you can be united with the independent Christian Churches? Furthermore, if you will quit preaching that the charismatic movement is wrong, that Calvinism is wrong, and that the church of Christ is not a denomination, you could probably be received back into the good graces of the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas as well as the various church supported universities which you have been criticizing. If your form of unity is worth a dime, why not show us how well it works by practicing it yourself? What you are asking of us is not unity but capitulation! Frankly, I am not interested in that.

You brethren who introduced the sponsoring church arrangement were guilty of sin because you destroyed the Bible pattern of congregational government. You brethren who introduced church support of benevolent societies and church support of colleges were guilty of sin because of perverting the mission of the New Testment church. You brethren who involved the church in all forms of church sponsored recreational activities were guilty of sin because you perverted the mission of the New Testament church. You are simply reaping the fruits of your apostasy at this stage of history. We cannot compromise our convictions by ceasing to preach what the bible says on these subjects. We can have unity only if you repent of your sins and return to obedience to the Bible in these specific matters.

There are a whole host of brethren in Brother Rice’s predicament. They are sick of the liberalism which they see in the churches which they are attending. Some of them are working diligently to stop it. They cannot stop it, although they may slow it down for a while. However, they will not go back to the point at which they departed from the word of God and restore the New Testament patterns of congregational cooperation and of the mission of the church. Human pride will not allow them to do that.

We hurt for these brethren. Our hearts bleed for them however, from our perspective, this seems to be their plight and future. Brethren, again we plead with you to repent and be converted to the right ways of the Lord. This is the only way to have peace with God and to heal the breaches in the Lord’s church.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 195-197
March 22, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

In the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, about 60 miles east of Lexington, sits Cob Hill, Kentucky. The eastern Kentucky towns of Irvine and Ravenna are about 13 miles from Cob Hill, on State Highway 52, which winds its way around the foot of the Hill. The area’s economy is based on farming (tobacco to sell, corn for local uses), oil, coal, and more recently factories. Some folks on Cob Hill work as far away as Mt. Sterling, Lexington, and other surrounding places. Driving up Cob Hill is something like riding the Incline at Lookout Mountain, Chattanooga. Tennessee, with the added attraction of curves; the community is necessarily on top of Cob Hill. A faithful church meets here in the midst of nature’s beautiful setting, where a person can almost touch the stars at night.

When Brother Clinton Patrick came to Cob Hill from Miller’s Creek at age 9, in 1912, the church had already been planted. The log building they were meeting in at that time was also used as a  schoolhouse. One of the earliest preachers Brother Patrick heard on the Hill was Pete Leggs. With the discovery of oil came false teachers, the Odd Fellows and related lodges, and other weakening influences; the church declined.

Other men who came to Cob Hill proclaiming the gospel in the early days included Lloyd Martin and “Uncle” Green Hall. Brother Hall left the Christian Church and would not stay around anyone playing a musical instrument under any circumstances. His son George also preached but was weak about accepting exchange offers to preach at union meetinghouses, with the understanding that some denominational preacher would then speak where the brethren assembled. Sam Estes is remembered for never preaching without a plug of tobacco in his mouth–preachin’ and spittin’– though it is hoped other, better influences followed his work as well! Tom McCoy labored among the brethren for about a year. But, perhaps most interesting was another who appeared to be like Melchisedec, “without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” In the 1920’s, a Dutchman showed up preaching, but no one could find out where Leo W. Waggner came from. This being the days of the revived form of the Ku Klux Klan, Waggner was suspected as being a Catholic spy. If he was, his disguise was perfect because he opposed the Roman Pope in his sermons as strongly as he opposed “praying through” for salvation. When he disappeared without a trace, rumors claimed he ran off after robbing a post office, or was murdered for a few dollars, or was “put away” for spy activities on behalf of Catholicism. William M. Warner also preached in the 20’s, but later defended instruments in worship.

During World War II, “certain men crept in unawares” sowing the seeds of premillennialism. Jim Forrester, who “brothered” the denominationalists, labored to establish this doctrine. Others during the 1940’s included a Baber, and Burt Martin. All these could be expected to oppose “movie going,” but not the traditions of men in religion. The aged John M. Stuart, known as “Mat,” sometime preached on the Hill; though not millennial, he tried to plant the no-class position. As the millennialists gained ascendency, the Patricks began worshipping with the new church in West Irvine in the 1950’s. Also, the millennialists had not liked brother Patrick inviting Henry S. Ficklin of Owingsville to preach, nor was Brother Ficklin’s opposition to tobacco ever appreciated on the Hill.

Alvin Holt’s successful tent meeting at West Irvine had established the work there. But it was not long until the influence of men like Basil Overton and W.L. Totty helped carry the church into institutionalism, in spite of labors by Houston Gately and others. Brethren began meeting again on the Hill, not with the millennialists this time, but in Lloyd Hall’s (grandson of “Uncle” Green) store house. Houston Gately and his father Jesse labored among the brethren, and Howard See came from Lexington to help when he could.

In the 60’s and 70’s, the work has continued with a new meetinghouse and regular or semi-regular preaching by Sam Watkins, Paul H. Grimes, Dorsey and his son Freddy Galbreath, and recently Bob Blevins sharing the load with Bill Cameron. Meetings have been held by Robert Dillinger (cousin of the notorious criminal John, and pallbearer at his funeral), Bob Crawley, Bobby Witherington, Paul K. Williams, Harry L. Lewis, Neil Mohon, Paul Earnhart, Ron Halbrook, and others. Though Baptist, Methodist and Christian churches are strong in this area, so-called Pentecostalism is dominant. Attendance among the brethren numbers 30-40, with meetings on Sunday at 9:55 a.m., 10:30 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. There have been at times study and singing on Saturday evening and Wednesday evening services. A good training class has been conducted and four or five gospel meetings are held each year.

[Truth Magazine XXIII, 12 (Mar. 22, 1979):194]

By Johnie Edwards

The emphasis men place on strength may not be the same God places on it. Paul said, “. . ..for when I am weak then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). Paul said he was strong when he was being persecuted and when he had infirmities and reproaches for Christ’s sake. Let’s take a look at real strength. We are strong:

(1) When we have respect for the authority of the Bible. Paul said, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of ‘he Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). We are strong when we recognize that we must have Bible authority for all we do religiously.

(2) When we are not ashamed of the gospel. We need more people who say as did Paul, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). We are strong when we want only the gospel preached and that in its fulness.

(3) When we practice what we preach. We need the teachings of Paul to the Romans when he said, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? . . . (Rom. 2:21). There is a great demand for the people of God to practice what we preach. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; . . .” (Gal. 2:20).

(4) When we are filled with zeal and knowledge. Paul prayed that the Colossians might “be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. 1:9). Couple zeal and knowledge in a child of God and you have strength.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 190
March 15, 1979